W912DQ-17-R-7000-0001_AMENDMENT_1__N2W_PHASE_1_RFPa.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

See the SF 30 Block 14 Continuation Page

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 36

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 21-Apr-2017

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X W912DQ-17-R-7000

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

31-Mar-2017

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

21-Apr-2017

CODE

USACE, KANSAS CITY +

FEDERAL BLDG CT-C 601 E 12TH ST RM 647

KANSAS CITY MO 64106-2896

W912DQ 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

X

W912DQ-17-R-7000

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

The following changes are amended into this solicitation in Amendment 01:

1. The maximum quantity of submitted pages for Factor 1-4, Submission Requirements, Technical Approach Narrative, is increased from fifteen to eighteen pages (RFP page 45 of 142)

2. Clarification of submittal requirements for Tab A, Tab B, and Tab C in the Volume 1 Binder and CD (RFP page 22 of 42, Section 00 22 10, Paragraph 3.0 Proposal Format and Submittal Requirements)

3. Note: Deleted text is shown with a red strike through, and added text is shown in green text.

4. The offeror is required to acknowledge all amendments in their proposal. Failure to acknowledge amendments may cause the rejection of a proposal.

5. No additional changes are included in this amendment.

(End of Summary of Changes)

The following have been modified:

PHASE 1

General Description of the Scope of Work - Preliminary For Information Only – Final Scope of Work to be Provided in Phase Two – Project currently lacks congressional authorization and appropriations.

Note that no award will be made without the Federal Government completing all real estate requirements for this project. Real estate requirements are in the process of being completed.

RFP SECTION 00 22 10: PHASE 1 OF 2 PHASE SELECTION PROCEDURES

1. Overview

a. This Request for Proposal (RFP) solicits for the design and construction of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency’s (NGA) Next NGA West (N2W) facility in the greater St. Louis metropolitan area.

b. The construction contract for the N2W acquisition will utilize a Design- Build delivery method.

The selected design-build contractor must have the demonstrated capability to manage a complex design effort; plan, and execute large scale projects (with thousands of workers per day on site and placement in the range of tens of millions of dollars per month); and meet construction deadlines on a confined site with multiple facilities commencing at the same time. The entire program will require extensive coordination using an Integrated Master Schedule (IMS). Work for the project will involve site development, general construction, roads, walks, excavation and grading, drainage, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire protection work, building automation, building security systems, data cabling of secure and non-secure networks, engineering controls, telecommunications systems, utility systems, lawn irrigation, and landscape work and operation and maintenance. All work will be accomplished in compliance with the RFP criteria, contractor prepared design documents, applicable local, state, and Federal codes, and ICD requirements applicable to the construction of a secure facility.

c. Firms formally organized as design-build entities, design firms and construction contractors that have associated specifically for this project, consortia of firms, or any other interested parties may submit proposals. A design firm or construction contractor may offer more than one proposal by entering into more than one association. Associations may be joint ventures or include key team subcontractors. Any legally organized Offeror may submit a proposal.

d. Ownership Disclosure: Offerors shall be required to submit a completed Security Questionnaire pertaining to foreign interest, for the prime contractor (to include all parties in a joint venture), the Architect-Engineer and all major subcontractors proposed in Phase 1 (Note: if additional subcontractors/team members are added in Phase 2, the Security Questionnaires shall be submitted in accordance with instructions provided to Phase 2 Offerors). Include the Statement of Affiliation (Attachment A) in Tab A.

All Offerors and subcontractors shall be required to comply with DFARS 252.209-7001, Disclosure of Ownership or Control by the Government of a Terrorist Country, DFARS 252.209- 7002, Disclosure of Ownership or Control by a Foreign Government and DFARS 252.209-7004, Subcontracting with Firms that are Owned or Controlled by the Government of a Terrorist Country.

A contract will not be awarded to a firm or subsidiary of a firm if it is determined that the Government of a terrorist country has significant interest in the firm or subsidiary or if the firm is determined to be under foreign ownership of a country that sponsors or assists terrorism or is an intelligence threat. Subcontracts identified in the proposal are subject to the same eligibility determination.

If the Government determines there is or may be an issue, the Government may seek clarification to make a final determination if the Offeror is eligible for award. If an Offeror is not determined to be free of these issues, the Offeror, may be permitted to submit a mitigation strategy.

e. Contractor Team Arrangements. Contractor Team Arrangements are considered an arrangement in which (1) two or more companies form a partnership or joint venture to act as a potential prime contractor; or (2) a potential prime contractor agrees with one or more other companies to have them act as its subcontractors under a specified Government contract or acquisition program. In accordance with FAR Subpart 9.6, the Government will recognize the integrity and validity of contractor team arrangements; provided, the arrangements are identified and company relationships are fully disclosed in the offer. The Offeror shall identify the major or critical aspects of the requirement to be performed by those identified in the Contractor Team Arrangement.

f. Any Offeror submitting an offer in the name of a joint venture, shall include a fully executed copy of the joint venture agreement with the offer. Joint venture agreements which require SBA approval may be submitted absent the requisite SBA Servicing Agency approving authorities’ signature; however, the Offeror shall submit evidence from the Offeror’s SBA Servicing Agency that the Offeror has notified and discussed the proposed joint venture for this project with the appropriate SBA personnel.

g. In Phase 1 of the two phase selection procedure, Offerors will submit certain specified performance capability proposals, demonstrating their capability to successfully execute design build construction work under the contract resulting from this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the proposal and intends to invite a maximum of three most highly rated Phase 1 offerors who submitted proposals to compete for the design build construction of the N2W facility.

h. Offerors must submit a complete Phase 1 proposal to be considered for Phase 2. PHASE 1

DOES NOT INVOLVE PRICING SUBMISSION.

i. At the beginning of Phase 2, an amendment will be issued to only the selected offerors from Phase 1 inviting them to submit a design build technical solution, key sub-contractors/consultants and economy/efficiency, small business participation plan, and price proposals for consideration.

The amendment will request additional information needed to complete the submission of Phase 2 proposals. In Phase 2, the Contracting Officer will award a single firm fixed price contract for the design and construction of the N2W facility to the offeror whose proposal offer the best value

- Trade Off proposal to the Government, considering the price and non-price factors described in Phase 2. The Government intends to announce the names of Offerors selected for Phase 2 on the FEDBIZOPPS website.

j. Offerors must submit a complete Phase 2 proposal to be considered for award. Failure to submit a complete proposal may result in the entire proposal being rejected.

k. This solicitation uses the Two-Phase Design-Build selection procedures, as described in FAR Sub Part 36.3, and provides for payment of a stipend to the unsuccessful Phase 2 Offerors who were not selected for award of the resulting Design-Build contract. To be eligible for a stipend, the unsuccessful Phase 2 offeror’s technical proposal must be rated acceptable in all technical evaluation criteria, essentially meeting this solicitation’s Government furnished criteria. Payment of the stipend will be initiated ten (10) calendar days after contract award provided the award has not been protested. The stipend amount is $650,000.00.

l. Based on lessons learned from NGA’s New Campus East (NCE) project, a critical aspect of the N2W program is insuring that there is continuity and a single point of responsibility for operations and maintenance of the facilities during the transition period from construction completion to full operational capability. This transition period is from the time that the construction is complete and there is beneficial occupancy to the time that the facilities are fully operational, installation of FF&E, active (classified) IT systems are in-place and operational, and the occupants have moved from the 2nd Street facilities into the new N2W facility. This transition period includes the time required for the construction contractor to complete the punch list items, finalize all commissioning, perform validation and verification of all systems, and validate facility energy performance objectives through four seasons of full occupancy.

m. NGA currently has a contract with Service Source to provide their Base Operations and Support Services (BOSS) for their 2nd Street & Arnold facilities. Service Source, as a nonprofit participating agency with AbilityOne, will be used to provide O&M/BOSS services as a sub-contractor to the construction contractor. Department of Defense (DoD) prime contractors are allowed to receive credit toward their small business subcontracting goals if they subcontract with qualified nonprofit agencies participating in the AbilityOne Program. This authority can be found at 10 US Code 2410d. As required by FAR 8.002, Priorities for Use of Mandatory Sources and as reminded and encouraged by the DASA(P) Memo issued 9 May 2014. The solicitation will include FAR 52.208-9 Contractor Use of Mandatory Sources of Supply or Services as prescribed in FAR 8.005.

2. GENERAL PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

All offerors shall be required to submit a proposal with the minimum content as specified herein.

Proposals without the minimum content may be rejected. Proposals will be received until the date and time indicated on Standard Form 1442 at the following address:

U.S. Army Engineer District, Kansas City Federal Building Room 647 ATTN: CECT-NWK-M/Jay Denker 601 East 12th Street Kansas City, Missouri 64106-2896

3.0 PROPOSAL FORMAT AND SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS

In order to be considered for award of a contract for the requirements of this solicitation, the offeror must submit a proposal with its offer. Failure to submit a complete proposal may result in the entire offer being rejected. The proposals shall be submitted in Volumes as follows:

Proposal Characteristics - PHASE 1

Submit the proposal in tabbed, three-ring binders identified by the Solicitation Number (W912DQ- 17-R-7000), project title (N2W, St. Louis, MO), name, address, and telephone number of the offeror.

Arrange the proposal as follows:

Phase 1 - Volume 1, Technical Proposal:

Cover letter - Solicitation number; Name, address, email, and telephone number of the offeror; Names, title, email, and telephone numbers of persons authorized to negotiate on the offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this RFP. Name, title and signature of the person authorized to sign the proposal.

A statement specifying agreement with all terms, conditions and provisions included in the RFP; CAGE Codes and DUNS number for the offeror, and all teaming partners who participated in the Factor 1-3 – Corporate Experience.

Table of Contents - Each volume of the proposal should contain a detailed table of contents all pages of each factor should be sequentially numbered. If more than one binder is used, the complete table of contents shall be included in each.

TAB A – Standard Form 1442, completed and signed by authorized individual(s) of the Offeror, include the offeror’s DUNS number in block 14.

Acknowledgement of all amendments to the RFP in accordance with the instructions on the Standard Form 30 (amendment form).

Ownership Disclosure - Statement of Affiliation Attachment A at the end of this section. See paragraph 1-d above.

Offers submitting proposals using a teaming arrangement shall submit a fully executed copy of the teaming arrangement signed both by the subcontractor/teaming partner and the offeror and the narrative described in 00 22 10 paragraph 1.e above.

Offers submitted in the name of a Joint Venture must be signed in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the joint venture agreement as evidenced in the proposal, including letters of commitment from the joint venture firms. See 00 22 10 paragraph 1.f above.

Letters of commitment for subcontractor or teaming partners as identified in section 6.0 below.

Bond Surety Letter. Offeror must provide a letter or other documentation from a surety appearing on the Department of Treasury Circular 570 (list of approved sureties) stating that the Offeror is able to provide a bid bond for Phase 2 and obtain performance and payment bonds should they win the contract. FAILURE TO PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION WILL

RESULT IN INELIGIBILITY FOR AWARD.

Financial statement and bank letter that verify that sufficient funds will be available to perform the work.

TAB B – Section 00 45 00 – Representations and Certifications, Printed Entity Record from System for Award Management (SAM).

TAB C – Teaming Agreement, if applicable. See paragraph 1-e (above) Joint Venture Agreement, if applicable. See paragraph 1-f (above).

TAB D - Factor 1-1: Key Personnel

TAB E - Factor 1-2: Performance Confidence

TAB F - Factor 1-3: Corporate Experience

TAB G - Factor 1-4: Technical Approach Narrative

Information submitted about any company other than the Offeror, whether a predecessor company, affiliated company, major subcontractor, or other associated business, WILL NOT be evaluated for any factor unless the proposal contains a detailed narrative explaining why this submitted information is relevant for performance of this contract. The Government will consider the adequacy of this explanation in deciding the relevance and weight of the information to this procurement. Information about major subcontractors may not be given much weight unless the proposal contains some evidence that this subcontractor is committed to perform the work. See UAI 5152.236-9001 “Personnel, Subcontractors, and Outside Associates and Consultants”

Offerors shall limit Phase 1 Proposal, to the following page limits.

Factor 1-1: Key Personnel, to a maximum of 40 pages plus up to 5 pages for the matrix.

Factor 1-2: Performance Confidence. No page limit for this factor.

Factor 1-3: Corporate Experience, to a maximum of 40 pages.

Factor 1-4, Technical Approach Narrative, to a maximum of 15 pages.

Volumes shall be submitted in the following quantities:

Volume 1 – Technical Proposal Original & 12 copies

Electronic copies shall also be provided on one CD/DVD in PDF format and be *Optical Character Recognition (OCR) compatible. The CD/DVD must be clearly labeled by solicitation number, project name, installation, and Offeror’s name. In the event of any conflict between the electronic submission and the hard copy submission, the hard copy submission will govern and will be the material upon which the Government bases its evaluation and ultimately, its decision.

All text must be legible and easily read. The page size of the offeror’s proposal shall not exceed 8-1/2 by 11 inches. Diagrams, charts and tables shall conform to the paper size. All text shall be typed single-spaced with a minimum size 10 font. Margins (1-inch) shall be clean and clear. If fold-out charts are unavoidable, and are to be utilized, all sheets shall be reproduced on 11 by 17 inch, and folded to 8-1/2 by 11 inch size. A page is defined as text or information on one side of the paper. If it is printed double sided, each face will be counted as a page.

The submittal requirements for Tab A, Tab B, and Tab C are required to be submitted only in the original Volume 1 binder and CD, and are not required to be included in the additional 12 copies of the Volume 1 binder. The tabbed information is not required to be in a sealed envelope.

*OCR is a common method of digitizing printed texts so that they can be electronically searched, stored more compactly, displayed on-line, and used in machine processes such as machine translation, text-to-speech, key data extraction and text mining.

4.0 INQUIRIES/QUESTIONS

Technical inquiries and questions relating to this solicitation shall be submitted via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at (https://www.projnet.org). To submit and review inquiry items, prospective offerors will need to use the Bidder Inquiry Key presented below and follow the instructions listed below the key for access. A prospective offeror who submits a comment /question will receive an acknowledgement of their comment/question via email. Another email to the same address will notify the prospective offeror once the reply is available for viewing.

***Please Note: Offerors shall only submit one question per inquiry. All inquiries containing multiple questions shall be rejected.

The Solicitation Number is: W912DQ-17-R-7000 The Bidder Inquiry Key is: 56P78V-ZZYZHS

Instructions for first-time ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

1. From the ProjNet home page linked above, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.

2. Identify the Agency. Select agency USACE.

3. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

4. Email. Enter the email address you would like to use for communication.

5. Click Continue. A page will then open saying that a user account was not found and will ask you to create one using the provided form.

6. Enter your First Name, Last Name, Company, City, State, Phone, Email, Secret Question, Secret Answer, and Time Zone. Make sure to remember your Secret Question and Answer as they will be used from this point on to access the ProjNet system.

7. Click Add User. Once this is completed you are now registered within ProjNet and are currently logged into the system.

Instructions for future ProjNet Bid Inquiry Access:

1. For future access to ProjNet, you will not be provided any type of password. You will utilize your Secret Question and Secret Answer to log in.

2. From the ProjNet home page linked above, click on Quick Add on the upper right side of the screen.

3. Identify the Agency. Select agency USACE.

4. Key. Enter the Bidder Inquiry Key listed above.

5. Email. Enter the email address you used to register previously in ProjNet.

6. Click Continue. A page will then open asking you to enter the answer to your Secret

Question.

7. Enter your Secret Answer and click Login. Once this is completed you are now logged into the system.

The Bidder Inquiry System will be unavailable for new inquiries ten calendar days before proposal due date in order to ensure adequate time is allotted to form an appropriate response to inquiries and amend the solicitation if necessary.

Offerors are requested to review the specification in its entirety, and review the Bidder Inquiry System for answers to questions prior to submission of a new inquiry.

The ProjNet call center operates weekdays from 8AM to 5PM U.S. Central Time Zone (Chicago) or by appointment for OCONUS. The telephone number for the Call Center is 1-800-428-HELP. Email to staff@rcesupport.com.

5.0 JOINT VENTURES

Joint Ventures shall submit the following additional documentation regarding their business entities:

1) A copy of their Joint Venture agreement.

2) A detailed statement outlining the following in terms of percentages, where appropriate.

a. The relationship of the joint venture parties in terms of business ownership, capital contribution, and profit distribution or loss sharing.

b. The management approach of the joint venture in terms of who will conduct, direct, supervise and control the project and have custody and control of the assets of the Joint Venture and perform the duties necessary to complete the work.

c. The structure of the joint venture and decision-making responsibilities of the Joint Venture parties in terms of who will control the manner and method of performance of the work.

d. The bonding responsibilities of the Joint Venture parties.

e. Identification of the key personnel having authority to legally bind the Joint Venture to subcontracts and state who will provide or contract for the labor and materials for the Joint Venture.

f. Identification of party maintaining the Joint Venture bank accounts for the payment of all expenses and the deposits of all receipts, keep the books and records, and pay applicable taxes for the Joint Venture.

g. Identification of party furnishing the facilities, such as office supplies and telephone service.

h. Identification of party having overall control of the Joint Venture.

Other sections of the proposal shall identify, where appropriate, whether key personnel are employees of the individual Joint Venture parties and identify the party, or hired as employees of the Joint Venture.

6.0 SUBCONTRACTOR/TEAMING PARTNERS

If an offeror wishes to receive credit for the corporate experience or past performance of a subcontractor or teaming partner, the offeror must submit a letter of commitment to use the proposed firm on the project, signed both by the subcontractor/teaming partner and the offeror. The commitment letter must be submitted even if the subcontractor/teaming partner is in some way affiliated with the offeror (for example, the subcontractor/teaming partner is a subsidiary of a joint venture partner, or a subsidiary of a firm to which the joint venture partner is also a subsidiary).

Include the subcontractor/teaming partner letters of commitment in Volume 1, TAB A.

SAMPLE LETTER OF COMMITMENT to

USE SUBCONTRACTOR/TEAMING PARTNER

[COMPANY LETTERHEAD]

TO: Contracting Officer, Kansas City District, United States Army Corps of Engineers

SUBJECT: Letter of Commitment for Proposed [insert project name]

Dear Sir or Madam:

[Insert name of offeror] and [insert name of subcontractor] hereby make the unequivocal commitment that, in the event that the company receives award of the Contract for [insert project name], [insert name of subcontractor] will perform the following work required by the Contract.

[Insert list of tasks to be performed by the subcontractor]

Sincerely, [Authorized Official]

[Legal Name of Offeror]

Date: __________

[Subcontractor]

[Legal Name of Subcontractor]

Date: ______

7.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

The agency will use Two-phase Design-Build Selection Procedures authorized by FAR 36.301.

In Phase 1, the Government intends to select up to a maximum of three most highly rated offerors to compete in Phase 2. The selection will be based on evaluation of technical factors. There are four non-price (technical) factors in Phase 1:

Factor 1-1, Key Personnel Factor 1-2, Performance Confidence Factor 1-3, Corporate Experience Factor 1-4, Technical Approach Narrative

Only those offerors selected in Phase 1 will be invited to submit a proposal for Phase 2, and they will be the only offerors eligible to compete in Phase 2.

If an offeror is selected as one of the most highly rated offerors to compete in Phase 2, the key personnel proposed by the offeror for Factor 1-1 shall remain unchanged, and available for the Government’s evaluation and acceptance during Phase 2. Any unavoidable Phase 2 changes or substitutions to the key personnel proposed in Factor 1-1 shall take place during Phase 2 discussions, and shall be considered for approval in accordance with clause UAI 5152.236-9001 “Personnel, Subcontractors, and Outside Associates and Consultants” in Section 00 73 00.

The Government will select a maximum of three offerors based on their overall merit after consideration of the evaluation factors described above. The relative weight given to the evaluation factors is described in the Phase 1 table below.

The Technical Factors are not all of equal importance.

RELATIVE WEIGHT OF EVALUATION FACTORS

Phase 1

Location Factor Number Description Relative Importance

Phase 1 & 2 Factor 1-1 Key Personnel This factor is the most important factor

Phase 1 Factor 1-2 Performance Confidence This factor is slightly less important than Factor 1-1, equal to Factor 1-3, and more important than Factor 1-4

Phase1 Factor 1-3 Corporate Experience This factor is slightly less important than Factor 1-1, and equal to Factor 1-2, and more important than Factor 1-4.

Phase 1 Factor 1-4 Technical Approach Narrative This factor is the least important factor

8.0 SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will be established to conduct the evaluation of proposals received in response to this solicitation. The evaluation will be based on the content of the proposal, proposal corrections and any information obtained from other sources, e.g. past performance information. The SSEB will not consider any documents incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

Each member of the SSEB will independently consider all information provided in the Phase 1 proposal. Once these individual analyses are completed, the SSEB will assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor. It is the responsibility of each member of the SSEB to provide and document sufficient strengths, weaknesses, and/or deficiencies to support the assigned rating for each factor as well as the overall Phase 1 rating. Comments are required for all ratings.

The results of the SSEB evaluations will be presented to the Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) who will review the evaluations conducted by the SSEB. The SSAC will provide their evaluation and recommendations to the Source Selection Authority (SSA), who will determine the most highly qualified offerors in Phase 1. The SSA will determine whether it is appropriate to engage in clarifications, communications or discussions. The ratings on individual factors, to include all support documentation, will be provided to the SSA. The SSA, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will determine which Offerors will participate in Phase 2 of the solicitation. In no case will more than three (3) proposals be included in the Phase 2 process.

Offerors are cautioned to put forth their best efforts for the Phase 1 submission, and to furnish all information clearly to allow the Government to determine their performance capability. Offerors should not assume that they will have an opportunity to clarify or correct anything in the proposal after submitting it in response to Phase 1.

9.0 TECHNICAL RATING

The Source Selection Team (SST) will use a combined technical/risk rating system that includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in Table 2 and the risk descriptions set forth in Table 3.

Table 2. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Table 3. Technical Risk Rating Method Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

Ratings will be assigned for each of the Phase 1 technical evaluation factors for each offeror. No overall rating will be assigned.

10.0 DEFINITIONS

Rating: The rating for the Technical factor will be expressed as an adjectival assessment of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable.

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Strength: Any aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness: A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

11.0 DEBRIEFING OFFERORS

Offerors may request a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505 Pre-award Debriefing of Offerors, and FAR 15.506 Post-award Debriefing of offerors.

12.0 TECHNICAL FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED IN PHASE 1

PHASE I—TAB D—FACTOR 1-1 – KEY PERSONNEL

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS.

Provide resumes for the offeror’s proposed organization’s key personnel; including team members, which demonstrate the qualifications necessary for this project. Submit eight (8) required key disciplines and up to two (2) additional team members at the offeror’s discretion to demonstrate and highlight the strength and expertise of the team. Additionally, submit resumes for alternates of all 8 key disciplines and the offeror’s (2) discretional team members for a total of 20 resumes. Resumes shall be limited to two (2) pages and any resume exceeding 2 pages will only have the first two pages evaluated. The maximum number of resumes that will be evaluated is 20. The required key discipline resumes are listed below:

1. Project Executive/Principal

2. Prime Contractor’s Project Manager

3. Construction Superintendent

4. Lead Architect

5. Lead Network Engineer

6. Construction QC System Manager

7. Lead Mechanical Engineer

8. Lead Electrical Engineer

9. Offeror’s discretion (optional)

10. Offeror’s discretion (optional)

Provide the following information in each resume:

• Proposed role on this project

• Relevant education (Degrees)

• Professional registrations

• Certifications, professional positions or other relevant professional qualifications/training

• Years of professional experience

• Years of experience with current firm

• Years of experience in proposed role

• Level of current Security Clearance

Additionally, resumes shall describe individual experience on specific projects that are similar to the project in this solicitation. Include the following information:

• Project name, location, beginning and completion date, and final contract cost

• The individual’s role on the project in enough detail to demonstrate level of involvement

• Provide a brief project description to demonstrate the project is similar to the criteria in Factor 1-3

Provide the following matrix to include all key disciplines (and alternates) submitted. Indicate if the person filling the key discipline worked on any of the ten projects submitted in Factor 1-3, as well as their role and the duration of their role. Ensure that the information provided in the matrix is validated/verified within the key discipline resumes. This matrix shall be submitted in a separate Excel file to be included on the CD with the proposal. An excel file template is provided for your convenience.

Projects from Factor 1-3

C ol um n1

Pr oj ec t 1

Pr oj ec t 2

Pr oj ec t 3

Pr oj ec t 4

Pr oj ec t 5

Pr oj ec t 6

Pr oj ec t 7

Pr oj ec t 8

Pr oj ec t9

Pr oj ec t 1

K ey

P er so nn el

Project Executive

Alternative

Prime Contractor's Project Manager

Alternative

Construction Superintendent

Alternative

Lead Architect

Alternative

Lead Network Engineer

Alternative

Construction QC System Manager

Alternative

Lead Mechanical Engineer

Alternative

Lead Electrical Engineer

Alternative

Offeror's Discretion

Alternative

Offeror's Discretion

Alternative

C ol um n1

Pr oj ec t 1

Pr oj ec t 2

Pr oj ec t 1

Project Executive Jane Doe, P.E.

Acme Construction

Project Executive 2 Years

Project Manager

1.5 Years

No Role

Alternative Executive John Smith, P.E.

Acme Construction

Senior Project Manager 2 Years No Role Project Scheduler

0.5 Years

EVALUATION CRITERIA

The Government will evaluate the key disciplines and alternates submitted for this project and will assign one combined technical and risk rating for this factor. The government will evaluate the following for strengths and weakness: (Criteria below are not listed in order of importance. The government desires proposals that offeror the best combination of experience considering all criteria.)

• Experience working on Factor 1-3 submitted projects or similar projects meeting criteria defined in Factor 1-3

• Experience working with other proposed key personnel on Factor 1-3 projects or similar projects meeting criteria defined in Factor 1-3

• Years of experience in the same role as that proposed for this solicitation

• Years of experience with the current firm that is part of the Offeror’s proposed team

• Year of relevant professional experience

• Professional registration

• Relevant certifications, professional positions and other qualifications

• Education

Minimum Criteria for Key Personnel and Alternates:

If the following minimum criteria are not met for each key personnel and alternate submitted, the proposal will be evaluated. However, it demonstrates a potential increased risk of unsuccessful contract performance:

• Worked on at least 1 Factor 1-3 or similar project.

• Worked with at least 1 other proposed key personnel on Factor 1-3 or similar projects.

• At least 3 years’ experience in the same role as that proposed for this solicitation.

• At least 1 year with current firm.

• At least 5 years’ relevant professional experience.

• No minimum requirement for certifications, professional positions or other related professional qualifications.

• At least a high school diploma or equivalent. The education requirement is met by Registered

Professional Engineers and Architects.

The following are contract requirements and if not met, the proposal will be considered a failure to meet a Government requirements:

• Professional registration is required for all proposed Architects and Engineers identified as “Lead” or “Designers’ of Record (DOR)” as required by ER 1110-1-8152. The “Lead” Network Engineer must be a Registered Communication Distribution Designer (RCDD) as required by UFC-580-01, 1 June 2016.

• At least one of the ten key personnel and one alternate must have a secret or higher security clearance.

PHASE 1—TAB E—FACTOR 1-2 –PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS:

For each of the projects submitted under Factor 1-3, provide a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) to a representative of the owner that can provide the owner’s opinion of the offeror’s past performance for the project. The Past Performance Questionnaire (Form PPQ-0) included in the solicitation is provided for the offeror or its team members to submit to the owner for each project. Ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the owner point of contact. Organize all Past Performance Information based on the Factor 1-3 Projects, which normally have project titles and are numbered 1-10, so that reviewers can match the owner’s opinion with the corresponding Factor 1-3 Project. There is no page limit for this factor.

Submit completed PPQs with your proposal. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from an owner for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the offeror should complete and submit with the proposal the first page of the PPQ, which will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). Offerors should follow-up with owners to ensure timely submittal of PPQs. At the owner’s discretion, PPQs may be submitted directly to the Government’s point of contact, Jay Denker, via email at Jay.B.Denker@usace.army.mil prior to proposal closing date. If you have questions regarding the PPQs, or require assistance, please contact Mr. Denker at (816) 389-3934.

For each of the prior 3 calendar years (e.g., CY14, CY15, CY16) provide your Incidence Rate for Safety Management. The rate shall reflect the number of injury/illness recordable cases involving days away from work, restricted days and cases involving transferring an employee to a different job (DART). Use the US DOL Bureau of Labor Standards formula to determine the incidence rate for each calendar year.

Reference: https://www.bls.gov/iif/osheval.htm. Also provide the data used in the calculation to determine the incidence rate for each calendar year (e.g., 1) Number of injuries/illnesses, and 2) Employee hours worked).

Submit copies of Federal/DoD/Navy/Army performance reviews even if they are likely already in the agency’s databases or likely within the agency’s arm’s reach, i.e. Contractor’s copy of CCASS or CPARS evaluations for each of the projects submitted under Factor 1-3, to ensure the agency has all relevant past performance information.

Provide the DUNS number(s) and CAGE code(s) for the prime contractor and all teaming partners, e.g.

design firms, key subcontractors, Joint Venture Partners, whose experience is included on Factor 1-3.

While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of providing detailed, current, accurate, and complete past performance information rests with the offeror.

The Government plans to contact and interview the owner’s representative identified on the Past Performance questionnaires, and reserves the right to interview other individuals acting for the owner’s representative, if the owner’s representative is not available. In addition, the Government may review any other sources of information for evaluating past performance.

Past performance information may be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Construction Contractor Appraisal Support System (CCASS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System

(CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Owners, Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

At no time during this process, nor during the debriefing, nor after award, will the names of the individuals providing reference information about an offeror’s past performance be revealed to the offerors or to any other party. If discussions are held, offerors may be afforded the opportunity to respond to adverse comments made by references in accordance with guidelines identified in FAR Part 15.3. In this case, comments will be extracted and provided to the offeror.

Evaluation Criteria

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

The Government will evaluate the responses from the customers from which Past Performance Questionnaires have been received.

There are three aspects to the performance confidence evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information). In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor's performance shall be considered. These will be combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

In reviewing each past performance effort by the offeror, the SST will first evaluate recency. More recent is better. Projects completed within the past 15 years are considered recent.

In reviewing each past performance effort by the offeror, the SST will then evaluate relevancy. The relevancy determination will be based on the Evaluation Criteria for Factor 1-3 Corporate Experience.

Each past performance effort will be assigned one of the levels of relevancy shown in Table 5:

Table 5. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition

Very Relevant Past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

In reviewing each past performance effort by the offeror, the SST will then evaluate the overall quality of the offeror's past performance (see FAR 15.304(c)(2)) to determine the performance confidence assessment rating. The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror's past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

The SSEB will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror's performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment (see Table 6 below). A separate quality assessment rating is not required.

The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror's overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. At the conclusion of the assessment, the offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in Table 6. The SSA may determine that a "Substantial Confidence" or "Satisfactory Confidence" past performance rating may be worth more than a "Neutral Confidence" past performance rating in a best value tradeoff.

The Government will evaluate the quality of past performance.

Table 6. Performance Confidence Assessment Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

SAMPLE TRANSMITTAL LETTER

FOR PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

Sample of cover letter to be sent by the offeror to its references

Name and Address of Reference Date

Dear __________________________:

We have listed your firm as a reference for work we have performed for you as listed below. Our firm has submitted a proposal for a project advertised by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Kansas City District. In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), an evaluation of our firm’s past performance will be completed by the USACE. Your candid response to the attached questionnaire will assist the evaluation team in this process.

Your firm has been listed as a reference for the work we performed for you on the following project:

(INSERT Project name and contract number)

We understand that you have a busy schedule and your participation in this evaluation is greatly appreciated.

Please complete the enclosed questionnaire as thoroughly as possible. Furthermore, a questionnaire has also been sent to ___________________ of your organization. Only one response from each company is required.

If at all possible, we suggest that you individually answer this questionnaire and then coordinate your responses with that of _________________, to forge a consensus on one overall response from your organization. It is preferred that you return your questionnaire to our office; however you may also send your completed questionnaire directly to USACE at the following address:

U.S. Army Engineer District, Kansas City ATTN: CECT-NWK-Mr. Jay Denker Federal Building Room 647 601 East 12th Street Kansas City, Missouri 640106-2896

The questionnaires can also be e-mailed to jay.b.denker@usace.army.mil. We request your questionnaire be provided by the proposal deadline, which is Month Day, Year

If you have questions regarding the attached questionnaire, or require assistance, please contact Mr. Jay Denker, USACE Contract Specialist, at (816) 389-3934.

Sincerely, (Offeror’s signature) Attachments:

1. Instructions to the Reference for completing the Past Performance Questionnaire

2. Past Performance Questionnaire

PHASE 1

PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE

NAVFAC/USACE PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE (Form PPQ-0) CONTRACT INFORMATION (Contractor to complete Blocks 1-4)

1. Contractor Information Firm Name: CAGE Code:

Address: DUNs Number:

Phone Number:

Email Address:

Point of Contact: Contact Phone Number:

2.